What a moron! Where is it written in the Constitution that the will of the people is to be taken from the election of a single senator?

On top of that, Scott Brown actually supported an health bill far worse when he was senator in Massachusetts.

Most conservatives in congress are screaming against government in health care; why did they vote the $400-billing Medicare/Medicaid reform by Bush in 2003. At that time they could also have done what they are suggesting now. You can always trust the conservative movement to lie and betray.

Government, democratic or not, will always be a crime, a shame, and a failure. It does not matter if you elect real conservatives or genuine progressives, as they both will grow the welfare and the warfare state as proven by... the whole history of the USA.

Sounds to me that somebody is whining because he is becoming incresingly irrelevant. Maybe they have overblown the impact of this guy who came in office just to deny the whole country health care that the American people so badly need. Go away and get a life with your reading from the repubs nonsense book

Senators broker own special deals, Associated Press,
[www.journalgazette.net]

Here’s a look at concessions lawmakers and interest groups won in the latest version of the Senate’s health care overhaul bill, approved 60-40 in a procedural vote Monday and headed to a second vote this morning:

Lawmakers
Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., who provided the critical 60th vote that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid needed, received numerous benefits for Nebraska, along with tighter curbs on abortion. Among the Nebraska-specific provisions:
•The federal government will pick up the full cost of a proposed expansion of Medicaid, at an estimated cost of $100 million over 10 years.
•Blue Cross Blue Shield of Nebraska will be exempted from an annual fee on insurers; the exemption could also apply to non-profit insurers in other states, possibly including Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan.
•Supplemental “Medigap” policies such as those sold by Mutual of Omaha are exempted from the annual fee on insurers, something that would help other companies selling such policies.
•A physician-owned hospital being built in Bellevue, Neb., could get referrals from doctors who own it, avoiding a new ban in the Senate bill that will apply to hospitals built in the future. Without mentioning Nebraska or other states by name, the Senate bill pushes back some legal deadlines by several months, in effect making a few hospitals near completion eligible to continue receiving referrals from the doctors who own them.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Finance Committee and a key architect of the legislation, put in a provision to help the 2,900 residents of Libby, Mont., many of whom have asbestos-related illnesses from a now-defunct mineral mine. Under Baucus’ provision, which never mentions Libby by name, sickened residents could sign up for Medicare benefits.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., chairman of the Banking Committee and facing a difficult re-election next year, added an item making $100 million available for construction of a hospital at a public university. The measure leaves it up to the Health and Human Services Department to decide where to spend the money. Dodd says more than a dozen sites could be eligible, but he hopes the University of Connecticut will be the beneficiary.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., negotiated $600 million in additional Medicaid benefits for his state over 10 years.

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., a key moderate, withheld her support until she was able to procure Medicaid help from the federal government worth at least $100 million in 2011.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., held out on backing the bill until Reid, D-Nev., agreed to a $10 billion increase in support for community health centers.

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., pushed a provision he said will let about 800,000 Florida seniors enrolled in private Medicare Advantage plans keep their extra benefits. It also helps seniors in a handful of other states. Elsewhere, Medicare Advantage patients risk losing benefits because the private plans are a major target of planned cuts to Medicare.

JCR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What a moron! Where is it written in the
> Constitution that the will of the people is to be
> taken from the election of a single senator?
>
> On top of that, Scott Brown actually supported an
> health bill far worse when he was senator in
> Massachusetts.
>
> Most conservatives in congress are screaming
> against government in health care; why did they
> vote the $400-billing Medicare/Medicaid reform by
> Bush in 2003. At that time they could also have
> done what they are suggesting now. You can always
> trust the conservative movement to lie and betray.
>
>
> Government, democratic or not, will always be a
> crime, a shame, and a failure. It does not matter
> if you elect real conservatives or genuine
> progressives, as they both will grow the welfare
> and the warfare state as proven by... the whole
> history of the USA.


"These deals -- the Louisiana purchase, the Cornhusker kickback -- had engendered a national disgust with the corruption and arrogance of one-party rule. The final straw was the union payoff -- in which labor bosses smugly walked out of the White House with a five-year exemption from a ("Cadillac") health insurance tax Democrats were imposing on the 92 percent of private-sector workers who are not unionized.

The reason both wings of American liberalism -- congressional and mainstream media -- were so surprised at the force of anti-Democratic sentiment is that they'd spent Obama's first year either ignoring or disdaining the clear early signs of resistance: the tea-party movement of the spring and the town-hall meetings of the summer."
(From Charles Krauthammer article)

JCR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What a moron! Where is it written in the
> Constitution that the will of the people is to be
> taken from the election of a single senator?
>
> On top of that, Scott Brown actually supported an
> health bill far worse when he was senator in
> Massachusetts.
>
> Most conservatives in congress are screaming
> against government in health care; why did they
> vote the $400-billing Medicare/Medicaid reform by
> Bush in 2003. At that time they could also have
> done what they are suggesting now. You can always
> trust the conservative movement to lie and betray.
>
>
> Government, democratic or not, will always be a
> crime, a shame, and a failure. It does not matter
> if you elect real conservatives or genuine
> progressives, as they both will grow the welfare
> and the warfare state as proven by... the whole
> history of the USA.



Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the democrats supporting that 3000 page horrendous misnamed health reform bill are governing against the will of the people. I hope every democrat supporting Obamacare is defeated.

Video of Obama, Clinton, Biden, Dodd, Reid, in 2005 all condemn using reconciliation (nuclear option) to approve Bush’s judicial nominees. Now they are going to use it to pass their 3,000 page horrendous health bill. Typical lying power grabbing liberals.
[www.breitbart.tv]

Zago Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sounds to me that somebody is whining because he
> is becoming incresingly irrelevant. Maybe they
> have overblown the impact of this guy who came in
> office just to deny the whole country health care
> that the American people so badly need. Go away
> and get a life with your reading from the repubs
> nonsense book


===============================================

Please explain how he would "deny the whole country health care that the American people so badly need"

JCR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What a moron! Where is it written in the
> Constitution that the will of the people is to be
> taken from the election of a single senator?

Nowhere, but Senate has rules on supermajority and Constitution grants Senate its own rules specifically to make large legislation painfully slow if at all possible -- our framers were very prescient (white and wealthy men as they were nonetheless)

> On top of that, Scott Brown actually supported an
> health bill far worse when he was senator in
> Massachusetts.

People are allowed to learn from their mistakes and have a second chance.

> Most conservatives in congress are screaming
> against government in health care; why did they
> vote the $400-billing Medicare/Medicaid reform by
> Bush in 2003. At that time they could also have
> done what they are suggesting now. You can always
> trust the conservative movement to lie and betray.

Sure, but will passing an even bigger and much more consequential monstrosity a solution?

> Government, democratic or not, will always be a
> crime, a shame, and a failure. It does not matter
> if you elect real conservatives or genuine
> progressives, as they both will grow the welfare
> and the warfare state as proven by... the whole
> history of the USA.

Absolutely, that's why I always vote divided government -- grind that Washington legislative machine to a halt.

There is no real difference between the conservatives and Obama on health care beyond the pace at which the government should take over health care completely.

For the statist party, controlling health care is essential because it puts government at the core our of our lives and makes sure elections are irrelevant. Whoever wins is not in charge. Who is in charge is the monstrous bureaucracy.

Don't buy the BS of conservatives when they pretend to be against government involvement in health care.
Don't buy that BS of the liberals /progressive when they pretend that conservatives / republicans are against universal health care.

Republicans and conservatives support universal health care. They just don't pitch it the same way and offer different strategies to get there.

Democrats don't care to lose the next couple of elections because their ideas will prevail any way. And they may actually not lose the next elections. And the conservatives, they won't repeal anything. What they will do is work to develop government's role in health care under the "limited government / free-market capitalism" pretense.

The Scott Brown win was a referendum on health care for the most part. When he won, people were screaming, "41, 41, 41!" That's not the number on his basketball shirt. Democrats across the Bay State voted for him b/c they know firsthand how regressive and oppressive the national plan will be - it is the Massachusetts failing, bureaucratic, Byzantine sinkhole on steroids. Many individuals, families and small businesses have been adversely affected by the MA plan while polticians - both state and national - look the other way. Health care costs have increased steadily along with premiums and copays including those in the subsidized plans. These are not the only problems.

Although I am a Democrat who voted for Scott Brown (am now unenrolled), I am somewhat confused by his support of the MA plan and told one of his aides last week that an explanation would be appreciated b/c it is the underlying model for Obamacare. (I voted for Brown in an effort to either stop this national train wreck or put a speed bump on the tracks AND to give Kerry some competition b/c he only represents the suits AND b/c I am fed up with arrogance of power.) I suggested to the aide that: a) perhaps Brown is not up to speed on the fact that the MA plan has left many worse off than before this law went into effect or b) he appears to have close ties to Mitt Romney who, along with Ted Kennedy (read: bipartisan) was responsible for this freak show in MA so is staying clear from jeopardizing that relationship. Hard to say. Regarding item a above: the same can be said for every MA rep and senator on both sides of the aisle.

btw, Candidate Obama told Tim Russert in November 2008 that people in MA were worse off than before b/c they were paying penalties but were still uninsured. He also said this on the stump with Kennedy and MA Gov. Patrick standing behind him. Then he stopped saying it and moved onto obsfucating language about his plan.

The MA plan has consistently been touted as a great success - everyone is covered. This is not true on either count. Being covered doesn't mean you have access to care. Re the success part: How many people is it OK to exploit in order to call something a success?

What is more important at this point is the smoke and mirrors regarding Obamacare. The talking points to sell this to the American people are just that - a sales job. If you read the House and Senate bills you will begin to gag although you may not fully comprehend how this works.

Here are a few tidbits about Obamacare that the American people have not been told:

If you are found eligible for the expanded Medicaid, you will NOT have any other choice unless you can afford to purchase insurance on the open market - you will not be allowed to "shop" at the Exchange. You may be auto-enrolled (against your will or without your knowledge), and if you are not auto-enrolled, and you do not sign up for Medicaid, you will pay a costly penalty. (The bills are not clear on auto-enrollment, but it is mentioned.) According to a Waxman h-c aide: low-income people couldn't be allowed in the Exchange or the CBO score would have been too high. My response to her was: Discrimination is discrimination. Period. The law of the land has to be fair to all Americans.

Obama said all Americans would have choice. Are low-income citizens undeserving of choice? Is Obamacare a class-based system?

Medicaid contains marked disparities among states and offers a quality of care which is found wanting. Office-based doctors typically refuse to treat Medicaid patients, thus, many citizens thrust into this plan will not only have difficulty finding a primary-care doctor, they will not have a choice of qualified doctors or be able to keep specialists who have been treating them. For many millions, the care they receive will be based on where they live.

Now, fasten your seatbelts:

In order to include more low-income citizens (use it as the dumping ground), Medicaid was revamped by accepting childless adults, increasing the age to 65, increasing income limitations and dropping the asset test.

Medicaid contains an estate recovery program which requires all states that receive federal Medicaid funding to recover assets of Medicaid beneficiaries upon death. Federal statute mandates recovery for ages 55 and up and for RX and hosptial but states can recover for any and all medical benefits. Per CMS, some states start at a lower age. Estate recovery is not limited to costs for nursing facilities and other long-term care services, so don't be fooled when you are told: this is only for old people going into a nursing home. Note: Estate means your assets when you die.

Thus, many millions of Americans who can't afford to stay out of Medicaid will be getting seriously screwed. btw, some Medicaid plans have premiums and copays, so it's not necessarily a free ride. And for those who think estate recovery is OK, rethink this b/c under a mandate, you can't escape unless you remain uninsured and pay the tax penalty - if you aren't auto-enrolled. But without a mandate, you know going into Medicaid that this is one of the terms, and you can decline without being punished.

The federal statute requiring estate recovery also contains procedural rules: a Medicaid applicant must be informed upon application and annual redetermination about estate recovery. What this means if that when you apply or reapply, you sign a disclosure page in the application that notifies you of the various Medicaid rules including but not limited to estate recovery. This is true of the Medicaid applications used for people in the community.

Auto-enrollment or enrollment by phone as well as automatic annual redetermination as described in the bills does not allow an applicant to review the terms of the contract (plan) and subsequently to agree to these terms by signature which, in the real world, is considered to be a deceptive act or practice. However, if the contract is available for review and a signature required, but an applicant is not satisfied with the terms, lack of another health insurance option that is in the best interest of low-income citizens (affordable and comprehensive) represents undue and unconscionable advantage being taken of this segment of the population.

Although estate recovery is not be referenced in the national bills or subsequent law, estate recovery can and will affect a large segment of the population as the expanded Medicaid is an integral part of the national plan. Remember, the CBO score relies on this expansion (dumping low-income people into Medicaid). Also, keep in mind when reading the bills that the language is large (read: contains many gray areas).

The estate recovery program itself also discriminates by: 1) age, 2) against those who own real and personal property and/or have other assets such as savings or annuities versus those who do not, and 3) with regard to the variations allowed in implementation of federal recovery options mandated by the statute - whether a state utilizes the minimum or maximum requirements (only RX and hospital or any and all medical benefits). Some states recover the minimum, some the maximum and some a mix.

Obama said national mandated health insurance, not a mandated loan!

Another discrimination is that Medicaid eligibility (per Medicaid regs) is based on an income-counting methodology that results in the use of line 22 on the federal form 1040 - gross income - whereas the plans at the Exchange use adjusted gross income - line 37. So they are using apples and pears to determine what you qualify for and how much you have to pay. Hello? Well, they have a few years before it's implemented to figure this out (read: mess with it, change more laws and regulations and screw with people's lives).

Other points to be aware of:

You will not have carte blanche at the Exchange. The Health Benefits Commissioner will tell you how much the gov't has decided you can afford to pay based on your adjusted gross (one bill bases this on modified adjusted gross which includes tax exempt interest). In MA, the cheapest gov't-approved coverage is expensive and unaffordable to use. I doubt the national plan will be any better. You will have to pay a specified percentage of your income before you get the subsidy. Whether this subsidy will be in the form of a tax credit and possibly be considered taxable income is not clear in the bills. In MA, employees must submit a 1099-HC when filing plus fill out a Schedule HC giving the name and number of their policy, how many months they have been uninsured if applicable and so on. The number 1099 wasn't picked out of thin air - it stands for Supplemental Income. So, anyone who can find out about this ought to let the rest of us know so we can raise hell. Good luck getting anyone on fhe Hill to tell you. They are experts at dodging important questions and giving disingenuous responses.

If you haven't figured this out yet:

Ending up a few bucks into the next premium bracket may cause you to think twice about earning extra money you need to pay for heat, food, property taxes, whatever. If that extra isn't enough to pay the next premium price the gov't has decided you can afford, you may end up worse off plus you never got to use the money to pay the freaking bills. Or it may mean that you have to buy a cheaper plan which will leave you with a lemon that you can't afford to USE and could also leave you bankrupt due to medical costs. This is not rocket-science. But now you are mandated and face untenable choices: health insurance you vs food et al vs costly tax penalties which are enforced by the IRS (get the picture?) vs intentionally lowering your income to survive what Washington calls health care reform. There was a good article about this in one of the MSM papers this summer: it is a disincentive to earn money and to be the best you can be. I sum it up as being regressive and oppressive.

The penalty in the House bill is based on modified adjusted gross which, as mentioned above, includes tax exempt interest and the tax exempt portion of the salary of a person who works overseas if his/her family stateside is not insured. IRS code was changed by Mr. Rangel who just stepped down as chair of House Ways and Means for guess what? Being naughty about paying his taxes. Haven't looked for this yet in the Senate bill. Keep in mind that penalties and business fines were built into the budget re the MA plan. It is highly likely that the gov't doesn't give a hoot if you opt out of being insured and pay the penalty b/c this shell game relies on penalties to help shoulder the cost AND the gov't saves money at the same time b/c it doesn't have to subsidize you if you are eligible.

The name of the latest campaign to find support for this despotic health care bill per a notice sent around by David Plouffe and also on Obama's site is: The Final March.

Ya got that part right!

The majority of the people have rejected this healthcare insurance proposal. We have been demanding a public option and ignored.

If we really want immediate relief, and not an ongoing bipartisan debacle on national healthcare insurance coverage, why not legislate by reconciliation a simple Medicare buy-in for all option, sliding scale based on income, continue payroll tax but without a cut-off and at a lower rate to keep the buy-in cost low; those without means for any buy-in get government subsidy. Private insurers who want to continue in that business can give better service/coverage beyond Medicare or whatever they think the customers will buy from them with whatever conditions they choose.

Since the Medicare infrastructure is already in place, it could more quickly and easily work than a whole new scheme. It could be a job booster by putting more money into low income pockets (people most likely to spend) and giving small business a break from the drag of providing healthcare. Medicare would have even more volume for cost-cutting clout and a greater income stream to stay solvent.

Still, we must continue to work on the underlying problem of high medical cost: seriously look at best practices both medically and fiscally and better promote what works, including treatments that are considered nontraditional in this culture; expand access to medical education (on all levels, not just MDs); expand efforts to educate the public generally on positive health practices and self-treatment options.

Let's let our Congressional Representatives know now and enthusiastically: We demand a strong public option; and we vote!

Well pick one and go there!

critic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Enough Already Wrote:
>
> >
> > Please explain how he would "deny the whole
> > country health care that the American people so
> > badly need"
>
>
> Republicans are deceiving americans when they
> suggest they are not against health reform, but
> just against this bill. The Obama administration
> made real efforts to forge a bipartisan consensus,
> but repubs missed this historic chance to forge a
> deal together so badly. They just didn't have any
> interest to be part of it for political reasons.
> "I'm against the government takeover of health
> care" is so much easier to say. The fact is, in
> any decent country except the US there was a
> government takeover a long time ago, and it just
> works and is so much less costly than the US
> system allowing huge profits for insurance
> companies. Wake up!

All the cheerleaders for this horrendous bill seem to imply that when it passes, all will be well. The only thing that will happen is the government will start taking your money the next day and then promise a health utopia in 3 or 4 years. The extra taxes collected will be used for whatever they deem fit and the emergence of the so called health coverage will happen when your present master has left office and he will most probably try to blame dear George for this pile of **** also.

JCR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What a moron! Where is it written in the
> Constitution that the will of the people is to be
> taken from the election of a single senator?
>
> On top of that, Scott Brown actually supported an
> health bill far worse when he was senator in
> Massachusetts.
>
> Most conservatives in congress are screaming
> against government in health care; why did they
> vote the $400-billing Medicare/Medicaid reform by
> Bush in 2003. At that time they could also have
> done what they are suggesting now. You can always
> trust the conservative movement to lie and betray.
>
>
> Government, democratic or not, will always be a
> crime, a shame, and a failure. It does not matter
> if you elect real conservatives or genuine
> progressives, as they both will grow the welfare
> and the warfare state as proven by... the whole
> history of the USA.


wow....what an amazing comment from JCR. Every sentence is delushional. JCR, you need to read the Constitution, stop listening to the state run media, and ask God for a working brain.

TruthPlease Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Real health reform includes:
> Malpractice insurance reform, limits on lawsuits
> filed against doctors, hospitals, and their staff.
> Defensive medicine waste’s billions per year.
> Allow insurers to sell across state lines, open up
> competition to reduce insurance prices.
> Allow individuals to choose their coverage and
> benefits not state or federal bureaucrats.
> Allow small businesses to pool together to buy
> health insurance.
> Stop the billions of dollars per year in waste,
> fraud, and abuse of Medicare and Medicaid.
> Stop the back room deals, payoffs, and bribes, to
> pharmaceutical companies, to lawyer associations,
> to unions, and to Senators and Representatives.


How true! But these are the issues that, if they were to be successfully addressed and resolved, immediately rob the politicians of so much of their power, influence and leverage. The politicians themselves simply will NOT do what is truly best for this Country unless and until it serves their gods first and best.

If Washington actually cared about The People, numerous pieces of small, compact and manageable, bi-partisan legislation aimed at address many of the unnecessary expenses of health care in America would have already been passed and in place and working.